Yeah... your uncle must really be ahead of the curve since all climate computer models today can't accurately predict anything more that 48 hours in advance.
If they could, we would not have any problems that we're having down south right now.
And so should you.
Not exactly. In fact there is no agreement in the scientific community at all because the human kind has been looking at this issue for relatively short period of time and no long history of measurements is available.
Couple this with the fact lab experiments are not good approximations of actual reactions systems in the atmosphere, and what you have is a very poor understanding of what is going on and where this is going.
Hah! You win, bro.
k.h.
p.s.
It's nice to have an open mind, and... as you point out--anything scientific can be fudged; however, there is 99.999% agreement within the accredited scientific community, and you're wrong.
p.p.s.
Meteorologists don't control weather; they forecast it.
Yeah... your uncle must really be ahead of the curve since all climate computer models today can't accurately predict anything more that 48 hours in advance.
If they could, we would not have any problems that we're having down south right now.
Not exactly. In fact there is no agreement in the scientific community at all because the human kind has been looking at this issue for relatively short period of time and no long history of measurements is available.
Couple this with the fact lab experiments are not good approximations of actual reactions systems in the atmosphere, and what you have is a very poor understanding of what is going on and where this is going.
I have to agree with this. Knowing the amount of computing power required for computer based models, even the largest mainframes availible today are not able to make accurate predictions of almost any weather event past about a week.
when you look at the last 100 years or so, its easy to claim that global warming is real.
Global Temperature Since 900 AD
Source: UN Panel on Climate Change
Too bad that after consulting with much of the scientific community the UN disagrees...
Whats really pathetic, is that a lot of the people have to try to justify their job as a global warming researcher, so they make drastic claims and put out misleading reports to make themselves seem essential to human survival.....
What boggles me is that people are arguing against it. People with absolutely no qualifications. I, myself, look to those pesky guys at NASA. Posted a link earlier in this thread actually. If the people that put man on the moon believe it, I am willing to. There is going to be misleading info on both sides, so you have to trust the experts on the subject.
Ironically, most of the big groups that are trying to disprove the evidence are supported by those who stand the most to lose by preventative actions against global warming.
Seriously, lets put this argument to bed. The only debate can be about the effects of climate changes. There were people in the tobacco industry that did the same thing, and some that still believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer. What should a smoker do? Believe those that profit from his inevitable painful death, or those that have nothing to gain from the science?
But how do scientists know global warming is caused by humans and that the observed warming isn’t a natural variation in Earth’s climate? Scientists use three closely connected methods to understand changes in Earth’s climate. They look at records of Earth’s past climates to see how and why climate changed in the past, they build computer models that allow them to see how the climate works, and they closely monitor Earth’s current vital signs with an array of instruments ranging from space-based satellites to deep sea thermometers. Records of past climate change reveal the natural events—such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity—that influenced climate throughout Earth’s history. Today, scientists monitor those same natural events as well as human-released greenhouse gases and use computer models to determine how each influences Earth’s climate.
What boggles me is that people are arguing against it. People with absolutely no qualifications.
Like most of the people on these forums.
Quote:
There were people in the tobacco industry that did the same thing, and some that still believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Well, scientifically speaking, the mechanistic understanding of how smoking causes cancer is unknown. There are ideas out there, but I have yet to read about a direct experiment showing one causing the other. All of the, so called evidence, is based only on statistics.
Fact is, people who never smoked get cancer as well, so this problem is not as simple as it sounds.
I think that what you need to understand is that these problems are very complicated and that global warming is better left to pros and NOT politicians and pseudo-scientists if we actually want to understand it and control it.
Car 1: Honda Accord Coupe 92
Car 2: Mitsubishi Eclipse95
Car 3: Acura legend coupe
iTrader Score: 7 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by legendvr
Like most of the people on these forums.
Well, scientifically speaking, the mechanistic understanding of how smoking causes cancer is unknown. There are ideas out there, but I have yet to read about a direct experiment showing one causing the other. All of the, so called evidence, is based only on statistics.
Fact is, people who never smoked get cancer as well, so this problem is not as simple as it sounds.
I think that what you need to understand is that these problems are very complicated and that global warming is better left to pros and NOT politicians and pseudo-scientists if we actually want to understand it and control it.
your right, but no one wants to hear what me you or the pros has to say, but they will listen to a celebrity. So thats why someone on top has to speak out against these things
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
__________________ "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in." Josiah Charles Stamp, first director of the Bank of England
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in." 
Linear Mode
